I wondered when this would show up here.
I don't know where i am on this one. It's so hard to get good unbiased info on this story. I've been watching it for a few days and most of the stories are coming from very libertarian sources.

One the one hand, it looks like an overreach of federal power. but when you dig into it...

On one side:. it IS federal land... like it or not. and he has not paid the fees required per his permit/s to graze on those lands for 20 yrs. It doesn't matter that his family did the same since the 1800's. the same people that would argue WITH him on that point, would turn right around and say Mexicans don't have any claim to Texas under the exact same argument. or Native Americans for that matter. It's not like it was just turned into federal land last month or something. This has been federal land for a LONG LONG time. Now, the BLM did apparently change the "rules" about grazing permits around '96 when his dispute began. but it's hard to get a clear read on what changed. I think they significantly reduced the # of head of cattle each person was allowed to permit. Where he runs 100's of head, i think he was cut back to like no more than 150, but that was again, in a biased source.

On the other side: why the hell isn't the state of Nevada standing up for THEIR rights? why do the "fees" to graze on these lands need to go to the federal gov't? and why the hell is there so much "federal" land anyway? there was a HUGE land grab a long time ago and the feds have just kept increasing and increasing the vast # of acres "they" own. It's not like you can say "we" own it because if they decide to keep you off of it, they will. Remember the dust up over the government shutdown recently? They went out of their way to close access to public federal parks and land. Do a google search on how much land belongs to the federal government... it's pretty stark. States rights pretty much have been eroded away in a LOT of areas. what's the justification for so much federal land.

The BLM owns 248 million acres!
99.7% of those 248m acres are in the 11 states that make up the western US.
The BLM oversees and manages the subsurface mineral rights of ALL of the estimated 700,000,000,000 acres owned by all 4 federal land management agencies (BLM, Forrest Svc, Fish and Wildlife, and Park Svc)
All federally owned land comprises of about 28% of all land in the US.
They (all 4 fed agencies) own 81% of Nevada!!!!!

I guess that answers the question of why Nevada's not standing up for it's rights... lol. It has none.
The state slogan is "All For Our Country". ha ha. I guess that includes loss of property rights... as in "we gave up ALL our land for our country."

ok, so maybe it's about harry reid striking a deal w/a chinese company to build a wind farm in the area and he needs the Bundy's cows out of the way so he used his influence through a former senior staffer of his who is conveniently now the BLM chief to muscle this family out of the way..... dirty harry does it again!
...or just another news story from yet another very libertarian source.

Seems like the guy had no grounds. He admitted that he would pay the grazing fees if it was the state or the county, but doesn't want the fed govt to get it. It's not his land that his cattle graze on. And it isn't his call to declare who owns public land.

Anytime somebody breaks the law and refuses to comply when confronted there is no alternative outcome. Don't get all the sympathy in this thread. Really makes no sense to point out to law enforcement as the problem. It's been through the courts multiple times and he lost. When has law enforcement ever backed off when someone refuses to comply with the law? Like never. If it escalates people will die and go to prison. The end game is entirely predictable. These guys are out to make another Waco if they don't back off and eventually comply.

It's hard to believe that the Fed. Gov. is spending so much time and money over a turtle I would think that money could.be put to better use, such as helping to pay health insurance premiums. I guess those cattle ranchers must be a more of threat to public safety and national security than I realize I hate to see what happens to all of those lawbreakers who cannot afford to buy health insurance.This aspect of the cattle removal has caught the attention of Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval.

“Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a ‘First Amendment Area’ that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the US Constitution,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.

“To that end, I have advised the BLM that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the ‘First Amendment Area’ should be dismantled immediately,” he said. “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists or the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”

Sandoval added that his office had received other complaints about BLM, including road closings and “other disturbances.”

It doesn't work that way. The only reason the govt is spending so much money is because of the defiance of the rancher. That's how things work. You don't comply with the law and the govt tells you to comply. You take it to court and lose, then appeal, and lose. After that there is no limit to how much the govt will spend enforcing the law. No one should ever make the mistake of believing the govt will just back down because it doesn't happen. If you choose to embark on this course of action it's because of notoriety of the cause. Not because you believe the govt will just walk away. You have to change the laws.

This is civil disobedience. pure and simple. It can be admirable or it can be stupid depending on the cause. In this case I'm thinking stupid.

I heard Sean Hannity spouting the same crap on Fox News last night about how the govt has better things to do than enforce the law. Also the issue of "freedom of speech". Seems to me that there is plenty of freedom of speech seeing as how it's on national news and a major news network (and in this case I use the term "news" lightly) is editorializing support for this particular civil disobedience.

John, this administration has proven over and over that they are more than willing to pick and choose what laws they enforce and which laws they don't.
This rancher has been defying for 20 years. Why now all of a sudden is it an issue.
"[Civil disobedience] can be admirable or it can be stupid depending" on whether I agree with the cause or not. There, fixed it for ya.

Maybe because it had to work it's way through the courts and appeals. Yes you are right about the legitimacy of civil disobedience being a matter of opinion. I thought that was obvious. So thank you for fixing my post up for people who don't have a grasp of the obvious. I have a had time relating to those types. Appreciate the help.

As a Nevadan, I'm with the government on this one just based on principal. Everyone else around there pays their grazing fees. He doesn't want to. That's his CHOICE. The repercussions, whether he likes them or not, are up to the enforcement agencies. It's been 20 years already. They told him what was going to happen. Now I don't like the BLM anymore than the next guy but, Mr. Bundy here has had two decades to plead his case. He has. It was deemed BS. Be a F'n man and accept it. His stubbornness is going to get someone killed.

I happen to love the BLM. If it wasn't for federal land places that I love such as Moab Utah wouldn't be the playgrounds that they are. If you do any jeeping and are familiar with Moab, then you probably know about the Lion's Back obstacle. It was BLM until someone brilliant decided to sell it. Now look up Lion's Back crash on Youtube and you'll see someone driving an out of control Bronco off the side of the obstacle. You can't sue the government for doing something dumb on BLM land but you can sue a private owner of land who you have paid a fee for the opportunity to do something stupid. Now NOBODY gets to use the Lion's Back obstacle. I am thankful that most of the rest of Moab is still BLM and free to use.

One of my favorite climbing crags here in Colorado was Cat's Slab. Another brilliant government agency sold that federal land to a private owner. The owner isn't doing anything with the land but it's closed to public use now. So now NOBODY gets to use the Cat's Slab rock climbing area.

BLM land is owned by the government which means that WE ALL OWN IT. The exception of course would be when someone wants to take it too far and chooses to use OUR land in a way that benefits him but reduces the benefit to the rest of us. Imagine a publicly owned lake that is perfect for wakeboarding and free to use because it's owned by the federal government and therefore owned by all of use. Now someone who owns a large wakeboard school company comes along and runs so many classes that the rollers they create make the lake unusable for anyone who isn't one of their paying customers. That is a close comparison to what this guy is doing except instead of making it impossible for you to use, he is making it impossible for someone else to use the land. We all own the land which is why you aren't allowed to use it in a way that excludes others from using it as well. I've had a lot of good times on BLM land and I want my children and grandchildren to have those opportunities to have fun well into the future.

Looks like the highly unusual outcome of the govt backing off after some elected officials got involved. Glad that it didn't come to people getting killed. We'll just have to wait and see how it pans out now. My bet is that they will forgive some back fees/fines if he starts paying.

I would think offering forgiveness and fines would be a reasonable alternative. Confiscating some personal property, withholding tax some refunds, herding up the cattle and auctioning them off would be more responsible ways to cover the fees. I don't understand how it was ever allowed to get this far.

They should roll in with the national guard and then see how tough those hicks really are. I think next time I get a ticket, I am going to have an armed stand off in protest and see where that gets me.............

As a Nevadan, I'm with the government on this one just based on principal. Everyone else around there pays their grazing fees. He doesn't want to. That's his CHOICE. The repercussions, whether he likes them or not, are up to the enforcement agencies. It's been 20 years already. They told him what was going to happen. Now I don't like the BLM anymore than the next guy but, Mr. Bundy here has had two decades to plead his case. He has. It was deemed BS. Be a F'n man and accept it. His stubbornness is going to get someone killed.

Zactly. This guy, the imaginary cadillac welfare mom, and Wesley Snipes are no different. He's a cheater wrapped in a flag. Don't like the rules of the game? Then don't play.

Some have asked why didn't my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800's they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against.

Now after over a hundred years of preemptive rights by beneficial use recognized and protected by the state, the federal government claims that the land is not state land but US territory and theirs for the taking or charging of fees.

So here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.

Now more questions; Should the people of Nevada have the right to govern their own state? Why did the federal government retain 89% of Nevada land after statehood? Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land? A good study of these questions will answer why Cliven Bundy refuses to pay an entity for something that is not theirs.

Some have asked why didn't my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800's they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against.

Now after over a hundred years of preemptive rights by beneficial use recognized and protected by the state, the federal government claims that the land is not state land but US territory and theirs for the taking or charging of fees.

So here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.

Now more questions; Should the people of Nevada have the right to govern their own state? Why did the federal government retain 89% of Nevada land after statehood? Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land? A good study of these questions will answer why Cliven Bundy refuses to pay an entity for something that is not theirs.

Thank you,
Ammon Bundy

Just sayin'...

Those issues would've been great ones to debate back in October of 1864, before Nevada was admitted as a state (of the UNION, in contrast to the confederacy). Nevada was "battle born" (our state motto) and control of and access to Nevada's silver by that great Republican President Abraham Lincoln was of significance to the war effort. Prior to that time, Nevada was a territory of the United States. Yes, most of the land within the state of Nevada is Federal. BFD. That's true for much of the west. That ship sailed almost 150 years ago. This isn't a power grab by the feds by any means. If anything we should all be mad that this cheater has gotten the chance to cheat for so long.

For those of you who support this nutjob, how would y'all feel if the state of Nevada sends the Feds (i.e. all you non-Nevadans) a bill for the land the feds have ruined via the Nuclear Test Site in Mercury NV? Goes both ways guys, and a great deal of Nevada has been spoiled in the name of National defense.

This guy wraps himself in the flag and calls Fox news, facts be damned.

How's about the Constitution of the State of Nevada?

Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

Why should I care what people in the 1800's did? You came into this world with nothing and you should leave it that way. Nobody should own anything for eternity. You can farm or ranch land, but you can't create it. If you want to be a sovereign state then you need to start your own country.

federal agents to enforce federal laws. say you go up to yosemite and sell a pound of weed under the bridge on the Merced river and a park ranger sees you ...you will get federal charges and see the federal magistrate because you are under federal law despite being in California.

This one still perplexes me. Every time i see an interview or read a transcript from the bundy's directly, i'm more inclined to side w/the "feds" on this. the fact that their family has been there for +100 yrs means nothing to me. it is and always has been federally controlled land since statehood. his argument, as i've said before, is no different than Mexicans who feel that they have a right to exist in the US because Texas, for example, once belonged to Mexico. simply doesn't matter today. who does it belong to NOW is what matters. like it or not. I also feel like he and his family are just butt hurt because they've had essentially free or almost free access to this public land for the purposes of commercial cattle business and now the fees matter. In Texas, if you want to own 1000 cattle, you damn sure better own (or at least have a lease on) 2000-5000 acres. And that can be very expensive unless your family in fact DID own the land for decades. Could you imagine if i bought some cattle and just let them roam around grazing on our Sam Houston National Park? that would be funny... lol

The feds showed up armed i'm sure because he has repeatedly threatened violence, overtly and thru innuendo. What would you expect?

but still, on the other hand, if suddenly the BLM raised the fees to an extraordinarily high rate with the sole intention of putting these cattle ranchers out of business so that they can use the land for other things.... like reaping minerals royalties or building wind farm/factories on it. then in that case i too would be pissed. Or if this WASN'T federal land and suddenly they showed up and said, "This belonging to us now, you go home okay. Das vi danya".

But it's really hard to digest the "states rights" angle because unfortunately, Nevada clearly gave that up a LONG LONG time ago....

It's unfortunate that a family with such a long history in cattle ranching may lose their business, but that's no reason on its own that they should just be allowed to keep on doing it.... They could move to another state if they want to stay in business. vote with their feet so to speak.

It's unfortunate that a family with such a long history in cattle ranching may lose their business, but that's no reason on its own that they should just be allowed to keep on doing it.... They could move to another state if they want to stay in business. vote with their feet so to speak.

Problem being that grazing land has value and you have to pay to use it. These guys are on the freeloader/mooch/wellfare-state model. If they go somewhere else, they're going to have to pay for the privilege there too.

Illegal aliens disregard federal law every day and are even encouraged by popular media and politicians to do so. But let one American rancher stand up for his rights, and the feds call out sharpshooters to take him out.

Illegal aliens disregard federal law every day and are even encouraged by popular media and politicians to do so. But let one American rancher stand up for his rights, and the feds call out sharpshooters to take him out.

Its not his right to break the law. I believe this issue has been to court a couple of times and he lost every time. There is no issue here except the Fox news teaparty view point of MERICA! I am a Republican and its idiots like this that give the whole party a bad name.

Its not his right to break the law. I believe this issue has been to court a couple of times and he lost every time. There is no issue here except the Fox news teaparty view point of MERICA! I am a Republican and its idiots like this that give the whole party a bad name.

Zactly. Slap a cowboy hat and a pair of wranglers on a rural white guy, and he can do no wrong.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

-Bundy- NYT.

Further more. His last name is Bundy. What do people expect. Al bundy wasn't a smart man. Ted Bundy was crazy and now we have this Bundy.

The beef he had was how the fed started handling the grazing thing. He paid his grazing fees up until the feds started manipulating the rules to force everyone out. The reason he stopped paying was because the government began using the grazing fee as a way to limit a ranchers head of cattle to an unprofitable amount. If you paid the fee, then you agreed to the headcount that the BLM demanded. The rest of the ranchers who used the land couldn't make money with the small headcount they were allotted so they left. He neither left, nor reduced his headcount, and the government has no grazing fee agreement to prove he agreed to the reduction.

IMO a good lawyer 20 years ago could have made a reasonable case. 20 years of federal defiance looks bad no matter the merit. One cannot thumb their nose at the system for 20 years, then expect the system to look favorably on them.

It's funny to see the "pro-Bundy" politicians of yesterday avoiding that dude like the plague today. Fox News was giving that guy more air time then Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly now hardly a peep. All he did was make it easier for people to accept if the government blows him and the kooks behind him away in the next few days.

...It's just as funny to see the rest of the media now suddenly covering the story. Saw that one coming a mile away.

I heard a statement this morning that i somewhat agree with. Basically, since when do you have to have the approved view on race in order to be covered by the constitution? IOW, what do his opinions on race have to do with whether or not his rights were trampled....

but i only somewhat agree because in this particular case i don't think his rights were exactly trampled.

how ironic(moronic) that he has finds it necessary to expound all these views on blacks taking handouts from the government while he grazes his cattle on public land...I guess he's "getting even" in that tiny mind of his.

I'd be willing to bet he's a fundamentalist mormon and has multiple teenage wives back at the compound.